Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Imran @ Immu @ Immubaba vs State By Sagar Town Police Station on 13 October, 2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4873/2020
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4553/2020
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4651/2020
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4873/2020:
BETWEEN:
Mohammed Imran @ Immu @ Immubaba
S/o Mohammed Noorulla
Aged about 32 years
R/o. No.2, 5th Cross
Pemmegowda Road
Venkatap, J.C.Road
Bengaluru-560 032.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Sameer Pasha, Advocate)
AND:
State by
Sagar Town Police Station
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP)
-2-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.26/2020 of Sagar Town Police Station, Shivamogga, for
the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 396, 201,
412 of IPC and Section 86 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4553/2020:
BETWEEN:
Syed Azeez Ur Rehaman
S/o Basheer Ahmed
Aged about 36 years
Occ: Car Driver
R/o. 4th Cross, Tank Mohalla,
Shivamogga-577 201.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Umesh P.B., Advocate for
Sri R.B.Deshpande, Advocate )
AND:
The State of Karnataka
by Sagar Town Police Station
Sagar Sub-Division
Shivamogga District-577 401
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.26/2020 of Sagar Town Police Station, Shivamogga, for
the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 396, 201,
412 of IPC and Section 86 of Karnataka Forest Act.
-3-
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4651/2020:
BETWEEN:
Sri Firoz Ali Khan
S/o Ifayakar Ali Khan
Aged about 34 years
R/at No.2677, 7th Cross
Lashkar Mohalla,
Mysuru-570 021.
...Petitioner
(By Sri B.Lethif, Advocate )
AND:
The State of Karnataka
by Sagar Town Police Station
Shivamogga District
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
of his arrest in Crime No.26/2020 of Sagar Town Police
Station, Shivamogga, for the offences punishable under
Sections 120(B), 396, 201, 212 of IPC and Section 86 of
Forest Act.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Orders
'through Video Conference', this day, the Court made the
following:-
-4-
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.4873/2020 has been filed by petitioner-accused No.5, Criminal Petition No.4553/2020 has been filed by petitioner-accused No.4 for grant of regular bail and Criminal Petition No.4651/2020 has been filed by petitioner-accused No.12 for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.26/2020 of Sagar Town Police Station, (pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Sagar) for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 396, 201, 412 of IPC and also under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Zameer Pasha, Umesh P.B. for Sri.R.B.Deshpande and Sri.Lethif B. for the petitioners-accused virtually and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that sandalwood has been stored by the complainant in his godown and three security guards have been deputed to watch the godown. It -5- is further alleged that on 6.2.2020 during the night hours one Nagaraj was working as a guard in between 8.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. On 7.2.2020 at about 7.10 a.m. the official Sri.Ramachandra Bhat called the complainant and asked him whether he has shifted sandalwood by opening the godown, then the complainant replied that he has not done anything. Immediately, the complainant informed the said aspect to the Range Forest Officer and he came near the godown and found that the door of the godown has been broke open and the guard Nagaraj was also not present and they suspected that some miscreants have committed theft of the sandalwood and subsequently the accused persons have been apprehended. It is also alleged that at about 12.00 noon one forest official informed that the dead body of Nagaraj has been found near Nedarahalli Bus- stand and he has suffered with grievous injuries and somebody has committed the murder of said official in order to commit the theft. It is further alleged that nearly about 100 Kgs. of sandalwood has been missing from the -6- said godown. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties that the petitioners-accused have not committed any offence. Already the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. It is their further submission that no serious overt acts have been alleged. There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, at the time of filing of the charge sheet Section 302 of IPC has been dropped. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
5. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.12 that the said accused has been inculcated in the charge sheet only on the basis of the confessional statement said to have been made by accused Nos.1 to 5 while they have been apprehended by the respondent. No recoveries have also been made from the possession of petitioner-accused No.12. They are ready -7- to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds they prayed to allow the petitions and to release the petitioners-accused on regular bail and on anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner- accused No.12 is the main accused. He has conspired with other accused persons and instigated for commission of the alleged crime by pointing out the storage of the sandalwood. It is his further submission that accused Nos.1 to 5 have been apprehended and the sandalwood has also been recovered from their possession. It is his further submission that the CCTV footage clearly goes to show that there is the movement of the car which have been seized during the course of investigation and involvement of the petitioners-accused. There is bar under Section 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act to release the petitioners-accused -8- on bail as they have been involved in the forest offences. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petitions.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
8. Section 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act reads as under:
"104-D. Special Provision regarding bail.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act No.2 of 1974) no person accused of a forest offence, punishable under Sections 86 or 87 or 104-A or in respect of ivory shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless.-
(a) the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and
(b) where the prosecution opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence."-9-
9. On close reading of the said provision it imposes two conditions before the bail application has to be entertained after the offence is committed under Section 86 or 87 or 104-A of the Act or in respect of ivory, the first one is the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and second one is, if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. Then under such circumstances the bar created under Section 104 of the Act will not come in the way to exercise the power granted under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is subject to some conditions which have been narrated under Section 104-D of the Act. If both the conditions have been satisfied, then under such circumstances, the Court can refuse the bail or grant the bail.
10. Taking into consideration the said provision of law, on perusal of the records there are no eyewitnesses to
- 10 -
the alleged incident and already the charge sheet has been filed. Insofar as petitioner-accused No.12 is concerned the records indicates that only on the basis of the confessional statement said to have been made by accused Nos.1 to 5 he has been inculcated in the case, that too the only allegation which has been made is that he has conspired and abated for the purpose of commission of the offence by pointing out the place. No recoveries have been made from the possession of the petitioner-accused No.12. Even on perusal of the charge sheet material it indicates that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. Though it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that CCTV Footage is also there to connect the accused to the alleged crime, that is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated during the course of trial. When already the provisions of Section 302 of IPC has been dropped and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioners-accused are ordered
- 11 -
to be released on bail and on anticipatory bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
11. In that light, Criminal Petition Nos.4873/2020 and 4553/2020 are allowed. The petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 4 are ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.26/2020 of Sagar Town Police Station, (pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Sagar) for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 396, 201, 412 of IPC and also under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, subject to the following conditions:
i) Each of the Petitioner-accused No.5 (Mohammed Imran @ Immu @ Immubaba) and petitioner-accused No.4 (Syed Azeez Ur Rehaman) shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iii) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
- 12 -
iv) They shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police on 1st of every month in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the trial is completed.
v) They shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities. If they again indulged in similar type of criminal activities, the trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail.
12. Criminal Petition No.4651/2020 is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.12 is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.26/2020 of Sagar Town Police Station, (pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Sagar) for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 396, 201, 412 of IPC and also under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, subject to the following conditions i. The petitioner-accused No.12 (Sri.Firoz Ali Khan) shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
- 13 -
ii. He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 20 days from today, failing which this order automatically stands cancelled.
iii. He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iv. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and co-operate for investigation.
v. He shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the charge sheet is filed.
vi. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/-
JUDGE *AP/-